Back to Publications

Decolonization and Arctic Engagement: A Critical Analysis of Resource Development in the US Arctic

By | Article
February 21, 2023
, , , ,
Offshore petroleum drilling rig in icy waters against a blue sky and snowy mountains in the background

A quest for natural resource extraction continues to perpetuate colonial dynamics in the US Arctic. Photo: Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE)

The Arctic Institute Arctic Collaboration Series 2023

An estimated 10 percent of the nearly four million residents throughout the entire Arctic region are Indigenous.1) Indigenous populations have inhabited much of the Arctic for thousands of years, long before the land was claimed and divided into nation-states. Interest in opportunities for natural resource extraction drove the historic colonization in the Arctic2) and, today, the increasing accessibility of minerals and oil due to climate change is fuelling the so-called “Arctic resource boom”3)—a quest to find and exploit the region’s remaining resources. As more international players hope to participate in Arctic affairs, it is critical to not only consider how these ventures impact Indigenous populations but to prioritize decolonization in these spaces.

Climate change is occurring more rapidly in the Arctic than in any other part of the world, with the most recent evidence pointing to a rate of warming nearly four times greater than the global average.4) This warming is driving the thawing of permafrost, loss of seasonal snow cover, and melting of sea ice, ice caps and glaciers; each, in turn, increasing the accessibility of natural resources and growing global interest in the Arctic.5) This article uses a decolonization framework to analyze resource development with a focus on the United States (US), which is considered an Arctic state by way of Alaska. Decolonization will be defined as a concept and practice of confronting and reversing the historic and ongoing legacies of colonialism,6) including the structures of power that uphold inequalities.

After a brief background covering land ownership and some of the outcomes of resource development in Alaska, this article will delve into dynamics that reproduce and perpetuate colonial structures of power. This analysis will feature (i) the prioritization of state and federal interests through the idea of sovereignty and (ii) the primacy and assumed superiority of Western knowledge and conventions and, conversely, the disregard for Indigenous knowledge systems and worldviews. To bridge the gap between theory and action, the article will continually ask what it would mean to decolonize resource development in the US Arctic. Confronting the ongoing systems and dynamics of colonialism must be placed at the forefront of present-day and future Arctic engagement and collaboration—not only in the US, but throughout the region.

Background

The United States purchased the land that is present-day Alaska from Russia in 1867. Just over a century later, in 1968, the discovery of oil in Prudhoe Bay made the Arctic relevant at a national scale.7) The commercial export of oil to the lower 48 states was now possible for the first time. Hindering this ambition, however, was the fact that the planned pipeline to carry the oil south traversed lands claimed by Alaska Native populations. ‘Alaska Native’ refers collectively to the Indigenous populations who have lived in present-day Alaska for thousands of years before the arrival of Europeans in the 1700s.8) This term encompasses “many nations and tribes” and “widely diverse cultures, languages, lifeways, art forms and histories”.9) To enable the construction of the pipeline to the contiguous United States, land claims issues around Prudhoe Bay were settled with the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971. ANCSA extinguished Indigenous claims to nearly 400 million acres of land throughout the state in exchange for $962.5 million and ownership of 43.7 million acres.

ANCSA also divided the state into twelve regions, each with an Alaska Native Regional Corporation. The regional boundaries of the corporations do not, however, equate to land ownership; land in Alaska is predominantly owned by the state and federal governments. Just 10 percent of Alaska’s 663,000 square miles are owned by Alaska Native populations.10) The Regional Corporations operate under US corporate law to administer resources and serve the local communities. These for-profit corporations participate in the Alaskan natural resource industry, both directly and indirectly.

Federal Arctic policy in the US has tended to emphasize the exploitation of Arctic resources for US economic development.11) Within the new National Strategy for the Arctic Region (released October 2022), economic development continues to receive a strong emphasis—alongside security—and Arctic investments are expected to increase over the following decade.12) In the face of this ever-growing interest in Arctic engagement, Alaska Native communities may face new and renewed colonial intrusion in the form of large-scale resource development.13)

Effects of resource development

Continual ‘boom and bust’ with periods of financial growth and decline characterizes resource development in the capitalist system.14) This instability prohibits many communities from relying solely on economies centered on resource extraction. Subsistence practices provide a source of greater stability within what would otherwise be an unstable extractive economy.15) Resource extraction has, however, had detrimental impacts on the land, water, and wildlife that reduce the viability of subsistence lifeways. Specifically, extractive activities have been found to increase vulnerability to biological invasion,16) bring changes to the land with built infrastructure,17) and introduce the risk of contamination, such as oil spills.18) The resulting decreased viability of subsistence practices is worsened by the threat climate change poses to hunting and gathering activities.19)

Although some measures of physical health have improved since ANCSA,20) resource extraction can compromise the health and wellbeing of nearby Indigenous populations. Significant health disparities remain among Alaska Natives compared to non-native Alaskans and other US residents. Generally, Alaska Natives have a lower life expectancy, increased risk of cardiovascular disease, and an elevated burden of infectious disease.21) By exacerbating food insecurity, the negative impacts of resource development may contribute to and worsen health outcomes. Many of these disparities are rooted in the history of colonialism and socio-political marginalization; in addition, their persistence today may be attributed to the disproportionate exposure to environmental health hazards.22) Moreover, some researchers have found that health data fails to produce a holistic picture of well-being, suggesting that there must be a greater consideration for context-specific understandings of health status.23)

Importantly, the effects of resource development are not felt uniformly by Alaska Natives. Instead, various facets of identity among individuals and communities impact how they relate to extractive activities. Socioeconomic class divisions,24) gender identity,25) one’s location in a rural versus urban setting,26) and many other factors can all impact how resource development is experienced. The complexity of the relationship between resource development and Indigenous populations, and the diversity within the Alaska Native population, must not be ignored or simplified.

Sovereignty and the prioritization of state interests

To decolonize resource development, Alaska Native populations must have greater control over the process. In other words, one overarching aim of decolonization in practice is Indigenous sovereignty. However, (neo)colonial narratives shape and are ingrained within the traditional concept of state-centered sovereignty. Within this concept, the aims of the government are continually prioritized; a hierarchy is established whereby the interests and concerns of the state are given primacy.27) This dynamic is one of the reasons why, in the case of Alaska and Alaska Native populations, resource development continues to be experienced as a colonial enterprise. The gains from extractive activities do not necessarily or primarily benefit Alaska Native populations,28) and the interests of outside actors are prioritized.29) Oftentimes, wealth from resource development has been extracted from northern regions to benefit other populations.30) An evaluation of the Red Dog Mine in northwest Alaska, for instance, found that the local population received a relatively modest share of benefits in terms of employment, income, and mobility.31) 

As established through ANCSA, the Regional Corporations are the primary route for Alaska Native participation in governing resource development in the US Arctic. These corporations, however, operate under US corporate law and, therefore, within the frameworks of the capitalist order. Participation through the structure of the Regional Corporations, thus, limits the opportunity for Alaska Native populations to achieve self-determination outside of those conventions. In action, considering the embeddedness of the corporations within the capitalist and colonial dynamics of the state, decolonization may necessitate enhancing the power of and regard for local governments rather than governing resource development principally through the Regional Corporations.

Prioritization of Western knowledge and conventions

A deep-rooted colonial mentality that remains pervasive is the assumed supremacy of a Western knowledge system. This creates a paternalistic relationship wherein decisions are made by external ‘experts’ and imposed upon the Indigenous population. In short, Indigenous ways of knowing are undermined.32) The term Indigenous knowledge is defined as “the understandings, skills and philosophies developed by societies with long histories of interaction with their natural surroundings”.33) Efforts to decolonize resource development in the US Arctic must not only embrace these different worldviews, perspectives, and knowledge systems, but put them first.

There is also a tendency to assume that the only route to achieving greater material benefits or power is to adopt a capitalist economy. What Aníbal Quijano—one of the preeminent thinkers of decolonization theory—terms ‘cultural Europeanisation,’ but can be understood as colonial Western society more broadly, is taken as universal and synonymous with being ‘developed’.34) Before ANCSA was passed in 1971, Alaska Native populations had primarily engaged in subsistence activities. Since the settlement of land claims agreements, Alaska Native populations are increasingly entrenched in the capitalist economy, especially via resource development. Today, most Indigenous people in Alaska engage in a mixed economy, meaning a combination of both subsistence and market-based activities.35) A desire to obtain the benefits from natural resource extraction on Indigenous lands is a primary reason for this growth in capitalist engagement.36) Through a decolonization lens, it is understood that following the rhetoric and logic of Western society is a way to “reach the same material benefits and the same power as the Europeans: viz, to conquer nature in short for ‘development’”.37) This model of development, however, has proven “environmentally calamitous on the global scale”,38) made even more dire by the rapid impact of climate change throughout the Arctic.

Conceptualizing Indigenous sovereignty

Notions of Indigenous sovereignty are connected to the right to self-determination. Decolonization must seek the conceptualization and expression of Indigenous sovereignty outside of the western hegemony and enduring colonial structures; self-determination and sovereignty are limited when they can only be articulated within the existing capitalist order.39) Dr. Melanie K. Yazzie presents the idea of anti-capitalist decolonization to challenge the “hegemonic formation of ‘extractivism’ and its liberal, capitalist, heteropatriarchal, and settler colonial valance of development”.40) This approach to decolonization seems especially well suited to the Alaskan context as it critiques how resource development is carried out in a capitalist system, instead of presenting resource extraction as something inherently at odds with indigeneity. Indigenous sovereignty is reliant on the ability of communities to have autonomy over their resources and decision-making, as they have for thousands of years.41) An anti-capitalist approach to decolonization offers a way to center Indigenous epistemologies and enable economic, societal, cultural, and political pathways conceptualized and implemented by Alaska Native people themselves.

The ideas presented throughout this article are applicable well beyond the US Arctic, and beyond the realm of resource development. Interest in exploiting natural resources drove historic colonization throughout the entire Arctic region and the lingering structures and systems of power continue to shape Indigenous lives and limit the capacity of communities and individuals to mold their own destinies. Therefore, interrogating and confronting the ongoing systems and dynamics of colonialism must be prioritized within Arctic engagement and collaboration going forward. In light of the new National Strategy for the Arctic Region—which differs, in one way, from the prior 2013 edition in making no mention of oil or gas42)—there is a need for further research and analysis to identify the implications of this new strategy on efforts to decolonize and achieve Indigenous sovereignty. There is also a need to center and privilege Indigenous voices in this space and, as such, future research must be informed and conceptualized by and for Arctic Indigenous populations.

A note from the author

This article is based on and includes direct excerpts from the thesis completed by the author for the earning of a Master of Science in Development Practice at Trinity College Dublin, supervised by Dr. Quentin Crowley and Dr. Padraig Carmody. Approval and permission for this project, including the research aims, methods, and ethics, were authorized by the module coordinator. Data was collected via two methods: (i) desk-based research to produce a narrative review and (ii) a series of semi-structured interviews with key informants and stakeholders in Alaska. The primary outcome of this research was a descriptive foundation upon which future research can build. The ideas discussed are by no means comprehensive, nor do they represent the vast diversity of opinions, values, and priorities that exist among Alaska Native people and communities.

The author has reflected a great deal on her positionality, including identifying and examining her interest in the subject, and has questioned and critically engaged with her assumptions and preconceptions. The author recognizes her positionality as an outsider to this region and the communities she is writing about, as well as her being raised in a Western system of knowledge that has continually marginalized Indigenous voices. It is in no way her intention nor her place to speak on behalf of any Indigenous person or other residents of the Arctic region. Moreover, she acknowledges the need to decolonize academic spaces and research processes.

Elizabeth Moeser is a recent graduate of the Master of Science in Development Practice (MDP) program at Trinity College Dublin. She hopes to bridge the gap between research and action throughout her career and has a particular fondness for the oceans and polar regions.

References[+]

Latest

April 18, 2024 Shifting Ties: Navigating the Complexities of Russia-South Korea Relations and the New Arctic Geopolitics By:
Article
Read more
April 16, 2024 Japan Steps Up Its Arctic Engagement By:
Commentary
Read more
April 12, 2024 The Arctic This Week Take Five: Week of 8 April, 2024 By:
Take Five
Read more